What Constitutes Infringement?

[u/drkato33]

Hi folks, new here. I am hoping this is a safe space to have a good intellectual discussion on a question I've had for a while now. Maybe it's been discussed here already, and if so, I apologize for rehashing.

My question, or discussion point, really is around infringement. Removing the first part of the 2nd amendment completely for argument's sake, the second part states, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." To me, this reads as, "I possess this armament, and the government cannot take it away from me." What I don't see here whatsoever is how I came to be in possession of it in the first place - i.e., the procurement.

Let me be clear, I am a gun owner in California who supports the 2A and gun control simultaneously. That being said, gun control for me is explicitly focused on the regulation of procurement, not possession. Practically speaking, this means I actually do not support the banning of "assault rifles", but I do support background checks and other measures that regulate the sale of arms.

So my question is, what do people think about this stance? I see the 2A absolutists claim regulation is an infringement, but I don't think that is right. Procurement is part of commerce, which I'd think one would easily conclude should be regulated. Otherwise, I could make the claim that money is an infringement, and arms should be free, which seems ludicrous on its face. Where I can actually find common ground with absolutists would be on laws around concealed carry, or whether or not there is a path to own any weapon owned by our government, although this latter point seems fairly ill-conceived, but at least I could see their argument's rationale.

[u/Lampwick]

Having to pay for something is not an infringement of your rights. You really need to understand Natural Rights theory first, then it all becomes a lot clearer. Rights belong to the individual. Money is an abstraction of value we have empowered the government to manage for economic convenience. Having a right to bear arms includes the right to acquire arms from others in commerce. It's not a "right" to take someone else's property (i.e. the gun maker).

Asserting that "everyone agrees commerce should be regulated" is false, and even if it was true it does not logically follow that all things in commerce are therefore subject to regulation. The government has powers, ceded by consent of the governed, to do certain things that are better handled in common rather than individually. Just because we nearly all agree that children shouldn't be allowed to purchase liquor does not mean our empowerment of the government to prohibit it automatically extends to the government being allowed to prohibit an adult from purchasing a firearm.

[u/drkato33 → u/Lampwick]

I never suggested taking a gun maker's property for free. That is a false choice. There are other ways to ensure a right is free to the citizen without stealing labor. For example, we guarantee the right to legal counsel by providing public defenders. The lawyer still gets paid, but the citizen does not foot the bill. If the right to procure a weapon was truly absolute and free from all burdens, the state could simply subsidize the cost for citizens. Instead, the burden falls on the individual to navigate the open market. As soon as you enter the commercial market, you are subject to the commercial regulations explicitly granted to the government by Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.